PluriCourts
19 20 Centre for the Study of the
Legitimate Roles of the Judiciary in
the Global Order
Table of contents
2019 at a Glance...3
Spotline on...5
LEGINVEST... 6
PITAD...7
Workshop on the Political and Legal Theory of Courts and Tribunals...9
Tom Ginsburg...10
Øyvind Stiansen...12
State Consent 2019...14
The Added Value of Non-compliance Mechanisms ...16
Guest Researchers...18
New at Pluricourts ...22
Masters Theses 2019...24
PluriCourts in Numbers...26
Events...26
Publications & Presentations...28
2019 at a glance...
another active year for PluriCourts
2 | PluriCourts Annual Report 2019
Our efforts in past years continued to yield a very strong range of publications.
In 2019 we have published twenty-five articles, five books, and sixteen chapters in anthologies.
Three new anthologies were added to our series Studies on International Courts and Tribunals with Cambridge University Press:
• Legitimacy of ‘Unseen Actors’ in International Adjudication, edited by Freya Baetens
• Human Rights Norms in ‘Other’
International Courts, edited by Martin Scheinin
• International Judicial Practice on the Environment, edited by Christina Voigt.
We continue to host a broad range
of publication-oriented conferences conducted in Oslo and abroad. We are implementing our new research plan addressing cross-cutting dimensions among a broader range of international courts. Several workshops have gathered experts to consider such lessons to be learned, including questions about the roles of international courts and global public goods.
We implement the two Research Council of Norway projects that received funding in 2017: “State Consent to International Jurisdiction: Conferral, Modification and Termination” and
“Responses to the ‘legitimacy crisis’ of international investment law (LegInvest)”.
The projects are under the leadership
| 3
of, respectively, C o o r d i n a t o r Freya Baetens and Coordinator Ole Kristian Fauchald. One new research application has been submitted to ERC.
We have also engaged with the Faculty of Law to explore the legacy of PluriCourts. This includes an inter-faculty PhD course, and “Ryssdalseminaret”, an annual seminar with Norwegian judges.
PluriCourts is well-established in the international research field, attracting visiting scholars and serving as a platform for our young scholars’ career development.
In 2019, several of our researchers moved on to other positions. Postdoctoral fellow Joanna Nicholson is now a Senior Legal Adviser at the Norwegian Refugee Council. Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi became a lecturer at Keele University.
Research assistant Stein Arne Brekke is a PhD candidate at European University Institute. We wish them all good luck in their future careers.
In 2019 we also welcomed a number of new staff members to PluriCourts. We received two new postdoctoral fellows – former PhD candidate Øyvind Stiansen and Tommaso Pavone. Ellen Emilie Henriksen, Karoline Hovland Lyngstadaas and Lara M. Wik joined the team as research assistants.
PluriCourts has an ambition to be an inspiring and inclusive workplace for all team members, not only at work, but also at play. In 2019, we organized a range of social activities, including participation in the Holmenkollen relay, dinners and payday café gatherings. Our Thursday lunch quizzes are famous. We hope that 2020 also will be academically stimulating, successful and fun!
Spotlight on
highlights from 2019
acy of the Interna-
tional Judiciary | 7
LEGINVEST 2019
2019 started with the conference
“Future Directions in Empirical Research on Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration,” co-organized by LEGINVEST, PluriCourts, iCourts and the German Development Institute. The conference also included the launch of PITAD – PluriCourts Investment Treaty Arbitration Database.
LEGINVEST researches the responses of countries and investment tribunals to what is generally referred to as the legitimacy crisis of international investment law. The legitimacy crisis is closely related to criticism regarding the effects of international investment law in the fields of the environment, human rights and development. These are chosen as the project’s focus areas.
The project will establish extensive databases that map the practice of countries regarding treaty negotiations (approximately 3000 treaties) and of
tribunals deciding investment disputes based on the treaties (approximately 1000 cases). This data will be analysed in order to explore how and why countries change their positions in treaty negotiations and their tactics when defending their interests in disputes brought before investment tribunals. The data will also be used to map and explain changes in the practice of tribunals handling such cases.
One overall purpose of LEGINVEST is to propose ways to enhance synergies between international investment law and policies to protect the environment, promote human rights, and facilitate sustainable development in poor countries. Another general objective is to contribute to the general debate concerning the legitimacy of international courts with a comprehensive case study and a new analytical framework for assessing the relationship between the activities of courts and treaty design.
“Our preliminary findings indicate that there is a very
significant potential for
international investment law to play a more supportive role in relation to the environment, human rights
and sustainable development.
But in pursuing such reforms, the regulatory regime could easily lose
support among investors, and the result could be that current and
potential benefits are lost.”
Professor Ole Kristian Fauchald
Photo: Maxim Usynin 6 | PluriCourts Annual Report 2019
Photo: Maxim Usynin
P LurI ourTS NVESTmENT rEaTy rbITraTIoN
D aTabaSE C (PITaD) I T a
The PITAD database project commenced in August 2014 with the initial objective of providing a general applicability database with relevant data on all investment arbitration decisions. The project began with the development of codebooks for arbitration and treaties, with information extracted initially from arbitral decisions and treaty texts. In January 2019, we were ready to publish the first version of the database online (pitad.org).
The result is an online platform based on network logic. The content of the database can be downloaded in ‘flat’
spreadsheets, a function that will be expanded and revised in future versions.
There are various menu options which allow users to explore the case list, case type, claimants and states, individual arbitrators, decisions, and a section in which data is organised according to selected categories (institution, arbitration rules, outcomes, claimant categories, sectors and countries). Thus, it is possible to zoom in and see all the cases against Canada or Argentina, those litigated by an investment fund, or held at ICSID. Dynamic maps and visualisations that provide a graphical perspective on the data are also included.
PluriCourts has, through the
establishment of PITAD and a series of empirical studies, provided a basis for a fact-based discussion of proposals to reform mechanisms for the settlement of international investment disputes.
Negotiations are carried out in the context of United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), largely on the basis of proposals from the European Union, and a key issue is whether and how one can establish a more permanent dispute settlement framework than the ad hoc regime that currently exists. PluriCourts was invited by the European Commission to present its findings to EU Member States in the early phases of the UNCITRAL negotiations, has been admitted observer status during the negotiations, and has been selected to head the Academic Forum that provides input to the negotiation process.
Examples of research projects based on data from PITAD include:
1) The strategies of states, arbitrators and private parties to investment disputes in terms of responding to the legitimacy law:
crisis of international investment
| 7
Our research has shown how states adjust their positions in negotiations of new investment treaties, reorient the arguments they present to investment arbitration tribunals, adopt new strategies when investors bring cases against them (including the hiring of counsel and the use of domestic legal instruments against investors), and increasingly challenge decisions by investment arbitration tribunals through annulment proceedings or in domestic courts. We have also found that arbitrators are somewhat sensitive to criticism addressed to their decisions and that they are increasingly cautious when deciding cases in favor of investors. As to the investors who initiate cases, our findings show that a broad variety of investors bring cases, and that their success varies significantly according to their size.
2) Claims that developing countries suffer disproportionately under the current regime of international investment law, in terms of restrictions on their political freedoms and losing cases at international tribunals:
Our research has identified which countries are targeted in investment disputes and the economic sectors within which such disputes are most frequent.
We have found that low and lower middle income countries according to World Bank income groups have had very few cases against them and that the dispute settlement element of the investment regime has had marginal importance to such countries.
3) Perceptions of the dispute settlement process as being dominated by western male arbitrators and lawyers, and that these actors frequently face conflict of interest situations (e.g. representing opposing parties or functioning as both arbitrators and counsel):
Our research has confirmed that there is a relatively small group of particularly powerful persons associated with investment treaty arbitration, and that many of these perform several and sometimes conflicting roles. While this leads to challenges regarding lack of diversity and sociological legitimacy, it is also important for the stability, coherence and predictability of the regime.
When the UNCITRAL reform process started in 2017, this coincided with major output from PluriCourts researchers based on the data collected in PITAD. Eventually, PluriCourts and its associated research project funded by the Norwegian Research Council, ‘Responses to the “legitimacy crisis” of international investment law (LEGINVEST)’, have become providers of data and research output to the reform process. Researchers from PluriCourts (Behn and Langford) are elected to key positions in the Academic Forum, which was established among a network of researchers to provide research input to the reform process.
Through these avenues, PluriCourts and LEGINVEST have provided funds and administrative support for activities of the Academic Forum during a very important consolidating phase.
W orkShoP oN ThE P oLITICaL aND L EGaL T hEory of C ourTS aND T rIbuNaLS 2019
Photo: Nicola Strain
In 2019, PluriCourts welcomed sixteen participants from thirteen different institutions and seven countries to the annual Workshop on the Poltical and Legal Theory of International Courts and Tribunals. We talked to postdoctoral fellow Antoinette Scherz about the workshop.
What is the background for holding an annual IPLT workshop at PluriCourts?
What does the workshop aim to accomplish?
The Annual workshop brings together scholars from around the world working on the theoretical aspects of the legitimacy of international courts and tribunals.
It therefore enables the exchange and collaboration across the fields of political theory/philosophy and legal theory.
Since the number of theorists working at
PluriCourts is rather small this format, which bringing a large number of theorists to Oslo every year crucially enables substantial and methodical discussions in international theory.
How does the format of this workshop benefit scholars and PluriCourts alike?
The workshop provides a platform for scholars at PluriCourts to present their ongoing work and to receive constructive feedback on it from peers and experts in the field.
It disseminates research conducted at PluriCourts and establishes PluriCourts as an important international research center and collaboration partner in field of international political and legal theory.
S PoTLINE o N T om G INSburG
Text contributed by Emma Carrol and Victoria Skeie Tom Ginsburg is the Leo Spitz Professor of International Law, and a Professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago. Last year, he took up a position on PluriCourts’ Scientific Advisory Committee. In June 2019 he gave a talk at PluriCourts entitled “Authoritarian International Law”.
He presented the topic of the development of international law highlighting how democracies have largely dominated the development and proliferation of treaties. As a scholar of both international law and political science, he presented his data illustrating that 47% of treaties were concluded where both parties were democratic. In the data, he identified two further categories, where one party was democratic or partially democratic, and where both parties were authoritarian. The latter category boasting very few treaties. He speculated as to why this was so, and claimed that democracies innovate; authoritarians mimic, then repurpose.
In one example, he explored the interaction of authoritarian regimes
within the international legal order with regards to the rise of China under Xi Jinping. In 2015, China commenced a foreign policy of One Belt One Road. It is a 30 year implementation plan with the goal of economic integration. China’s Belt and Road Initiative seeks to comprise an economic area linking 70 % of the world population and 55% of the world’s GDP.
The Belt and Road Initiative works on a hub and spokes model with China at the centre. An initiative as wide reaching as this is sure to have an impact on international law. This impact and its consequences will be dominated by China. The Belt and Road Initiative and the market power it will hold, will allow China to set market standards and the export of Chinese surveillance technologies.
He continued to discuss this with regards to international organisations, and expressed a concern for the large number of international organisations whom have no democratic members. This concern echoes in organisations, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.
He tied this to the fast-paced development of China, and their Belt and Road Initiative. Could this initiative, which focuses so intensely on regional investment, be substituting contracts for treaties? Ginsburg brought attention to the fact that if these trends continue, we may be heading in the direction of less
democracy and more corruption. It is a known fact that less than half of states are democracies, and this number continues to recede.
In response to a question from the audience as to the distinction between western democratic values and Asian values, and how this explains their differing use of international law and international organisations, Ginsburg defended Western democracies’ need to behave according to who they are. By extension, this requires them to voice and criticise human rights abuses. He drew the example of how the United States under President Barack Obama failed to criticise the human rights abuses, and this seems to have continued with President Donald Trump. This lack of scrutiny partly allowed Thailand to grow closer to China, and no criticism was directed against Thailand when they postponed their scheduled election, and it was found thereafter to be rigged. He explained that while the discourse of human rights diminishes, the discourse on the rule of law is rising. And it is this, almost, bureaucratic rule of law that protects individuals and democracies from non-corruption and safeguarding fair elections; such as by ensuring that b a l l o t
counters are non-biased.
| 11 10 | PluriCourts Annual Report 2019
“Since I started at PluriCourts in 2016, it has been a pleasure to work with Øyvind and watch his progress. He has produced a very strong PhD, and his papers are being published in top journals.
He should be in a good position to apply for an ERC Starting Grant next year. We are very happy to have him as a postdoc at PluriCourts. Øyvind is a team
worker and a great person to be around. I have also officially
entitled him “Scandinavia’s strongest political scientist” (last I heard he had done 170 kg in the
bench press), which as far as I know has not been challenged.”
Professor Daniel Naurin,
Faculty Supervisor
S PoTLINE oN Ø yVIND S TIaNSEN
On May 10, Øyvind Stiansen defended his PhD thesis, “The Politics of Compliance with International Human Rights Court Judgments.” Stiansen is the second PhD fellow to finish at PluriCourts, and is continuing his career at the centre as a postdoctoral fellow.
The dissertation is article based, and examines the politics of compliance with the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights judgments.
The first article, “Delayed but not Derailed: Legislative Compliance with European Court of Human Rights Judgments” has been published in the International Journal of Human Rights. The second article, “Directing Compliance? Remedial Approach and Compliance with European Court of Human Rights Judgments” has been published in the British Journal of Political Science. The third article, co
authored with supervisor Professor Daniel Naurin is titled “The Dilemma of Dissent: Split Judicial Decisions and Compliance with Judgments from the International Human Rights Judiciary”
and has been published in Comparative Political Studies.
PluriCourts talked to Øyvind about his thesis and time at PluriCourts so far.
The topic of your thesis is The Politics of Compliance with International Human Rights Court Judgments. Why did you choose this as a topic?
At the outset of my project, I was fascinated by how courts in general and international human rights courts in particular often rule in favor of individuals against the interest of powerful states, but rely on the cooperation by these same states to ensure that their judgments are implemented on the ground. I wanted to understand the politics of compliance and in particular what courts can do to facilitate the full and timely compliance with their judgments.
What do you consider to be your most important finding?
My most important finding is that compliance does not just depend on characteristics of respondent states such as the level of democracy or state capacity, but also on how judges design their rulings. By providing specific directions for what compliance should entail, courts can make it easier for pro-compliance actors to enforce compliance with their rulings. By ruling in ways that increase the perceived authority of a decision, for instance by avoiding open dissent, judges increase the political costs of blatant defiance.
Why did you choose to work at PluriCourts?
When PluriCourts started up, I had never thought much about judicial politics. Yet, the apparent power of courts that lacked enforcement powers intrigued me. In 2014, PluriCourts offered me a small stipend which allowed me to turn this interest into a successful PhD proposal.
S TaTE C oNSENT 2019 E xPErT m EETING
2019 has been an active year for the team members of State Consent to International Jurisdiction (SCIJ). Emma Brandon and Nicola Strain finished their first year as Ph.D.s, and are well underway in their respective research projects. Both received an Overseas Research Grant from the Research Council of Norway for research stays abroad that is taking place in the spring and fall semesters 2020 – Nicola at Columbia University, New York and Emma at Leiden University, the Netherlands. Nicola also received funding from “Det juridiske fakultets reisefond av 1973» for a research stay in the fall semester 2019 at The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies, Geneva.
On 21 June 2019 the first Expert Meeting of the State Consent to International Jurisdiction took place in Geneva, in cooperation with the Geneva Center for International Dispute Settlement (CIDS). At the expert meeting, the team members presented a progress report on the project and received comments from the participating experts from among others the Graduate Institute, CIDS, the University of Geneva, the International Criminal Court and Brandeis University.
Emma Brandon gave a presentation of her project, titled “Holding Signatories to Account: Applying interim obligations under Article 18 of the VCLT to states in the process of ratifying the Rome Statute”
and Nicola Strain presented a paper titled
“The murky waters of jurisdiction and applicable law in international economic disputes”.
14 | PluriCourts Annual Report 2019
“At this expert meeting, the team presented a progress
report on the project as well as three draft papers, and invited comments from
the participating experts.
These experts came from several research centres and institutions in Geneva (such
as the Graduate Institute, CIDS, the University of Geneva, the World Trade Organization and the law firm Lévy Kaufmann-Kohler)
and beyond (the African Court of Human and People’s
Rights, the International Criminal Court, Brandeis
University, Minnesota University, Edinburgh
University, Hebrew
University and the University of Oslo).”
Professor Freya Baetens
o ThEr h IGhLIGhTS IN 2019
Nicola’s highlights for 2019 included a research stay at the Centre for Trade and Economic Integration at the The Graduate Institute, Geneva, under the supervision of Professor Joost Pauwelyn. During the stay, Nicola was able to participate in a number of activities involving the ongoing crisis at the WTO Appellate Body and also presented at the Geneva International Economic Law Sessions.
Earlier in the year, Nicola also gave her first presentation at an international conference on her doctoral research at the 8th Conference of the Postgraduate and Early Professionals/Academics Network of the Society of International Economic Law at King’s College, London.
Emma’s highlights included the opportunity to spend three months as a Visiting Scholar at the Lauterpacht Centre for International Law at the University of Cambridge in the UK.
It allowed her to have fascinating and productive conversations about her research with the international law experts on Cambridge’s faculty and those who were fellow visitors. She also had the chance to consult Cambridge’s extensive international law library and attend many interesting international law events. The stay was funded by the University of Oslo Faculty of Law’s Department of Public and International Law’s Internationalization Funds.
| 15
T hE a DDED V aLuE of N oN -C omPLIaNCE m EChaNISmS : C omParISoNS a CroSS T rEaTy r EGImES
Many international treaties establish in- house mechanisms in order to facilitate implementation and compliance and to prevent non-compliance of parties.
Some regimes have particular complaints procedures and dispute resolution bodies to hear complaints by parties, private entities or affected non-party stakeholder, such as individuals and communities.
The functions of these mechanisms are of (and in some cases overlapping with) those that ICs exhibit, ranging from clarifying obligations and providing authoritative interpretations, rendering advisory opinions, inquiring into Parties’
compliance challenges and providing suggestions for addressing them, to the resolution of disputes between parties.
In other words, while not being independent courts, treaty-internal compliance and dispute resolution mechanisms carry out several similar functions. This situation gives rise to inquiries about the legitimacy, effectiveness and comparative advantages of these mechanisms, which is at the core of this Pluricourts project.
Pluricourts coordinator Professor Christina Voigt has done extensive research on non-compliance mechanisms in international environmental agreements. For the last 5 years, she has followed the establishment of the compliance committee of the Paris Agreement, of which she is a member.
Pluricourts supports capacity-building initiatives of the committee members and provides expert advice on central questions of confidentiality, effective decision-making as well as transparency.
The Committee’s first meeting will be in spring 2020.
Insights from this work will be presented at several Pluricourts workshops throughout 2020, where international experts working on different treaty-based mechanisms will meet to exchange their expertise, and to work towards a special issue of a legal journal.
This research project asks whether and why in some circumstances the use of more informal non-compliance mechanisms (NCMs) might be more effective to bring states into compliance with their treaty obligations or address situations of non-compliance than the recourse to ICs. (RT5) Non-compliance mechanisms as alternatives to ICs are compared to ICs for (i) the nature of
interest to be pursued, e.g. global public goods and common interest norms, (ii) for the nature of outcome, e.g. to achieve a result or stimulate process, and (iii) for questions of independence and accountability (this links also to RT3), in particular election and composition, and professional standards, and procedural rules (e.g. transparency, parties’ rights, fairness, time frame).
Guest Researchers
Photo courtesy of Reto Walther
Photo courtesy of Jay Krehbiel 18 | PluriCourts Annual Report 2019
Fulbright Scholar Jay Krehbiel West Virginia University
Why did you choose to be a guest researcher at PluriCourts?
I chose to be a guest researcher at PluriCourts because it brings together scholars from a wide range of disciplines to study international courts and tribunals. Knowing that I would have the opportunity to work with top scholars not only from my own field, political science, but also from other related disciplines made me confident that my time at PluriCourts would yield uniquely valuable feedback.
How did your stay at PluriCourts affect your research?
My time at PluriCourts both helped refine my ongoing research projects and sent my work in new directions. The feedback I received
from other researchers, both in informal conversations and workshop presentations, provided invaluable feedback for my existing projects. And those same conversations and meetings have led to the start of exciting new additions to my research agenda.
What would you recommend to other researcher who would like to have a research stay at PluriCourts?
My recommendation for researchers coming to PluriCourts is to make sure you take advantage of the wide range of expertise there. Come in with an open mind about how your research can inform and be informed by other related disciplines. And perhaps most of all, take advantage of the many workshopping opportunities and be active in the center’s intellectual community.
Reto Walther University of Zurich
Why did you choose to be a guest researcher at PluriCourts?
I chose to visit PluriCourts due to its work and reputation in the field of research on international courts.
My own research project concerns the European Court of Human Rights and its legitimacy. In the course of developing this project, work published by researchers from PluriCourts caught my attention and I got interested in PluriCourts. Furthermore, PluriCourts’
interdisciplinarity attracted me. I come from a faculty of law, which is by definition not a very interdisciplinary place. So, working with philosophers and political scientists seemed like a good opportunity to get to know other perspectives and a welcome change in environment. In addition, I knew some people who were, or still are, affiliated with PluriCourts and recommended it. Thanks to these connections, I had already attended an annual conference of PluriCourts when I applied for my research stay. I gained positive impressions and decided that I’d like to spend some time there.
How did your stay at PluriCourts affect your research?
My project advanced a lot during the six months I stayed at PluriCourts. I think the reasons for this are manifold.
In personal terms, PluriCourts is a very welcoming place where I genuinely felt part of the team. I had thus plenty of opportunities for valuabe exchange with the research staff and received thorough
feedback which was of great help for the further development of my project.
At home, I’m working on a scholarship that gives me plenty of protected research time, but also results in an only loose institutional affiliation, which is, morevoer, not with an institute specialised in questions concerning the legitimacy of international courts. Being surrounded by researchers dealing with questions related to my own research interest on a daily basis was thus highly welcome.
Overall, I felt that PluriCourts maintains a good balance between conferences and similar events and times
| 19
where one can fully focus on one’s reading and writing. It also worth mentioning that, in terms of infrastructure, PluriCourts offers attractive work places. Also the library service and research facilities of the University of Oslo are really excellent.
Finally, PluriCourts does a great job in making sure that people get to know each other, participate in social activities, and have not only a productive, but also an enjoyable time in Oslo. I think this fosters an overall well-being that is important for one’s effectiveness at work.
What would you recommend to other researcher who would like to have a research stay at PluriCourts?
If you have a research interest in international courts and, in particular, questions concerning their legitimacy, I would not hesitate to apply! I wouldn’t be afraid of visiting PluriCourts even if your own research project is not very interdisciplinary. Mine is neither!
Your project may become more interdisciplianary thanks to your stay at PluriCourts; but, if it does not, the other disciplinary perspectives will nevertheless enrich your research and have the potential to improve your work. Also, I wouldn’t worry about the Norwegian climate, weather, or life. Oslo is a very liveable city, its winter is not as cold and dark as you may fear, and there are many opportunities to enjoy your free time!
Your after work beer will be expensive, but your morning stimulant won’t - there’s coffee to refill everywhere. I guess this promises a productive time... doesn’t it?
Facing page: The view from PluriCourts’ new offices in Domus Juridica.
New at Pluricourts
In 2019, two new postdoctoral fellows joined the team at PluriCourts.
Tommaso Pavone
Title of project: “The Ghostwriters: Lawyers and the Politics Behind the Judicial Construction of Europe”
Background: I’m a political scientist by training,
though I have also studied law and sociology. I received my PhD from Princeton University in 2019, and my MA degrees from Princeton (2015) and the University of Chicago (2012).
Hidden talent: Painting, cooking, and weather fore
casting
What is your project about?
My book project reveals the concealed politics behind one of the most conspicuous transformations in modern governance: The growing reliance on law and courts to shape policy and resolve political struggles. The European Union (EU) is widely regarded as the exemplar of this “judicialization of politics:”
Activist state judges are presumed to have joined forces with the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to acquire new powers of judicial review and to Europeanize national legal orders. Conversely, my project uncovers geospatial, archival, and interview evidence that Europe’s judicial construction has not been pioneered by activist judges. Beneath the radar, Europe has been built by entrepreneurial lawyers who sought clients willing to break noncompliant state laws, lobbied judges to enforce EU rules,
and propelled them to refer noncompliance cases to
the ECJ by ghostwriting
their referrals.
What originally attracted you to PluriCourts?
Pluricourts is one of the world’s leading interdisciplinary research centers for the study of how courts, laws, and societies interact transnationally. I was attracted to this interdisciplinary ethos, the cutting- edge research conducted by its members, and the unrivaled support I would receive to conduct research and promote it internationally.
What is your best first year memory?
The PluriCourts ski trip to Hafjell, a ski resort two hours north of Oslo built in anticipation of the 1994 winter Olympics.
It motivated me to pick up skiing again after 15 years (thankfully without sustaining any injuries!) and exemplified two of Norway’s best qualities: Work-life balance and a collective enthusiasm for the great outdoors.
Øyvind Stiansen
Title of project: Judicial Behavior in the International Human Rights Judiciary
Background: PhD in Political Science from University of Oslo
Hidden talent: Deadlifts
What is your project about?
My project is about how judges in the Eu
ropean Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights decide cases and bargain over the direc
tion of their jurisprudence. The questions that reach these -- and other -- courts, will often have competing plausible an
swers. Judges may therefore arrive at dif
ferent conclusions depending on their attitudes and judicial philosophies, but also depending on strategic considera
tions and career incentives A first over
arching question is how factors such as political pressure and career incentives affect decision-making on these courts.
A second overarching questions concerns how judges from different states and with diverging preferences bargain internally and what sources of influence individual judges can exploit.
See pages 12 and 13 for more informa
tion about Øyvind’s work and successful dissertation.
22 | PluriCourts Annual Report 2019 | 23
M asters t heses 2019
E mma C arroL
Emma Carrol was a research assistant at PluriCourts from April 2018 until July 2019. During her time at PluriCourts she wrote her master thesis, “Victimhood and the Crime of Aggression: Broadening victim status at the International Criminal
ourt”, as a part of her studies in Public nternational Law.
e activation of the ICC’s jurisdiction ver the crime of aggression was activated, fter contentious and enduring debate, on 7th July 2018. By incorporating victim articipation within the ICC, the Rome tatute demands a focus on who may egally be considered a victim of the crimes
ithin its jurisdiction, including the crime f aggression. However, due to the recent ctivation of the crime of aggression, here have been no prosecutions oncerning the crime of aggression efore the ICC and scholarly discussions f victimhood of the crime of aggression ave been sparse. It is, therefore, vital for his concept to be investigated by policy akers, practitioners and scholars alike.
ictimhood for the crime of aggression t the ICC is not easily determined.
n contrast to the other crimes under he Court’s jurisdiction (war crimes, enocide and crimes against humanity), ndividuals have never been recognised as
ictims of the crime of aggression nor of he underlying act of aggression. Equally, ictim provisions at the ICC exclude the otion of a state as a victim. This creates contradiction between the state-centric ature of the crime of aggression and he individually focused victimhood ramework at the ICC. This thesis CI
Tho a1 pS lw oa tc bo ht mV aI tg iv tv na nt f
endeavours to explore how the crime of aggression can be expected to work within the current Rules of Procedure and Evidence at the ICC, focusing specifically on Rule 85, which outlines victim status.
This thesis considers what awaits future victims of the crime of aggression at the ICC, seeking to move beyond the state- centric nature of the crime of aggression.
It argues for an expansion of Rule 85 to incorporate states, whilst additionally recognising individuals as victims of the crime of aggression.
V ICTorIa S kEIE
Victoria Skeie worked as a research assistant at PluriCourts from April 2018 until February 2020. She wrote her master thesis, “To what extent does the European Court of Human Rights’ margin of appreciation threaten the rule of law?”
as a part of her master’s programme in the Theory and Practice of Human Rights.
Does the margin of appreciation doctrine of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR, or the Court) contradict the very rule of law standard the Court was established to protect? The rule of law applies to all government functions, including courts, to dispel threats of arbitrary use of governmental power.
The rule of law is undisputedly a central standard the ECtHR applies in its control of Member States. Yet, does the Court conform to the rule of law themselves?
Lautenbach writes, “in the long run international [courts] cannot continue
to apply their rule of law standards to states if they do not conform to these standards themselves”. This is particularly relevant to the ECtHR, which explicitly brings together European Member States with a shared heritage of rule of law–and which was explicitly charged to promote those values. The Court continuously applies the rule of law to Member States for full implementation of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention). However, the margin of appreciation doctrine appears to challenge the rule of law. One concern is the unpredictable interpretation and application by the Court of this doctrine.
It is therefore worth considering whether judgments employing the margin of appreciation are arbitrary in a way that violates rule of law. This paper focuses on only one aspect of the rule of law; namely, predictability and whether the doctrine threatens this aspect of the rule of law.
Life at PluriCourts
At PluriCourts, we work hard and play hard. Clockwise from top left: Out skiing on PluriCourts’ annual cabin trip to Hafjell; PhD candidates explore Copenhagen (Photo: Max Usynin), Dinner after annual Internal Seminar;
Drinks at our monthly payday beer; Celebrating Norway’s national day on the 17th of May
Photo: Maxim Usynin
26 | PluriCourts Annual Report 2019
The Team
Management
Director Andreas Føllesdal Co-director Geir Ulfstein
Administrative manager Siri Johnsen
Coordinators
Freya Baetens
Ole Kristian Fauchald Daniel Naurin
Christina Voigt
Postdoctoral fellows
Szilárd Gáspár-Szilágyi
Silje Synnøve Lyder Hermansen Mikael Holmgren
Joanna Nicholson Tommaso Pavone
Juan Pablo Pérez-Léon Acevedo Antoinette Scherz
Øyvind Stiansen Martin Westergren
PhD candidates
Tarald Laudal Berge Emma Brandon
Laura Letourneau-Tremblay Runar Hilleren Lie
Rosa Manzo Nicola Strain
Researchers
Daniel Behn
Research assistants
Stein Arne Brekke Emma Carrol
Ellen Emilie Henriksen
Karoline Hovland Lyngstadaas Victoria Skeie
Lara M. Wik
Administration
Marit Fosse
Stephanie Schmölzer (on leave)
Guest researchers
Julie Crutchley Julian Dederke Laura Fischer Jay Krehbiel Morten Ruud Erik Røsæg Matthew Saul Maxim Usynin Vegard Tørstad Reto Walther Chen Yifeng
| 27
Events
3455 followers 450 followers
PluriCourts
in numbers
MEN Overall: 50%
Academic staff: 53%
WOMEN Overall: 50%
Academic staff: 47%
DiSCiPLiNES
Philosophy: 3 Political Science: 8 Law: 19 Administration: 2
6
Conferences and workshops
23.01. Workshop, Publish & Flourish:
From Tentative Idea to Tenure- enhancing Publications, Oslo.
30.01. Seminar, Reforms of
International Investment, Oslo.
31.01. Conference, Future Directions in Empirical Research on Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration, Oslo.
01.02. Workshop, Reforming International Investment Arbitration, Oslo.
04.03. Seminar, Publish with
Cambridge University Press, Oslo.
19.03. Seminar, International Political and Legal Theory Seminar, Oslo.
14.05. Seminar, International Political and Legal Theory Seminar, Oslo.
19.06. Workshop, ERC Grant Application Writing Workshop, Oslo.
24.06. Workshop, Workshop on the
Political and Legal Theory of International Courts and Tribunals 2019, Oslo.
27 - 28.06. PluriCourts Annual Conference 2019, Oslo.
04. - 05.09. Symposium, The Legitimate Role for Investment Law and
Arbitration in Protecting Human Rights, Oslo.
24.09. Seminar, International Political and Legal Theory Seminar, Oslo.
07.10. Seminar, Ryssdalseminaret 2019, Oslo.
10 - 11.10. Workshop, Multi-user databases on judicial decision- making: From experience to best practices, Florence.
30.10. Seminar, International Political and Legal Theory Seminar, Oslo.
16.12. Seminar, International Political and Legal Theory Seminar, Oslo.
69 in total 29
Reading groups on the most relevant publications on international courts and legitimacy in the fields of law and Political and Legal Theory Workshops
PluriCourts Lunch Seminars on topics pertaining to
international courts and tribunals
12
Publications and presentations
Books
Baetens, Freya (ed.). Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication. Cambridge University Press.
Hermansen, Silje Synnøve Lyder.
Lær deg R. En innføring i
statistikkprogrammets muligheter.
Fagbokforlaget.
Pérez-León Acevedo, Juan Pablo (ed.).
Jurisprudencia de Derecho Penal Internacional. Ara Editores.
Scheinin, Martin (ed.). Human Rights Norms in ‘Other’ International Courts.
Voigt, Christina (ed.). International Judicial Practice on the Environment.
Questions of Legitimacy. Cambridge University Press.
Book chapters
Baetens, Freya. “Combating climate change through the promotion of green investment: from Kyoto to Paris without regime-specific dispute settlement” in Research Handbook on Environment and Investment Law.
Edward Elgar Publishing.
Baetens, Freya. ”First to rise and first to fall: the Court of Cartago (1907
1918)” in Experiments in International Adjudication: Historical Accounts.
30 | PluriCourts Annual Report 2019
Cambridge University Press.
Baetens, Freya. “Invoking human rights:
A useful line of attack or a defence tool for States in investor-State dispute settlement?” in Human Rights Norms in ‘Other’ International Courts.
Cambridge University Press.
Baetens, Freya. “Unseen actors in international courts and tribunals:
challenging the legitimacy of international adjudication” in Legitimacy of Unseen Actors in International Adjudication.
Cambridge University Press.
Baetens, Freya. “Ejusdem Generis and Noscitur a Sociis” in Between the Lines of the Vienna Convention?:
Canons and Other Principles of Interpretation in Public International Law, Wolters Kluwer.
Føllesdal, Andreas. “A Better Signpost, Not a Better Walking Stick: How to Evaluate the European Consensus Doctrine” in Building Consensus on European Consensus. Judicial Interpretation of Human Rights in Europe and Beyond. Cambridge University Press.
Føllesdal, Andreas. “Legitimacy Criticisms of International Courts:
Not only Fuzzy Rhetoric?” in Legitimacy. The State and Beyond.
Oxford University Press.
Nicholson, Joanna. “Learning lessons
through the prism of legitimacy:
What future for International Criminal Courts and Tribunals?” in The Future of International Courts.
Regional, Institutional and Procedural Challenges. Routledge.
Pérez-León Acevedo, Juan Pablo.
“Anonymity for Victims at the Special Tribunal for Lebanon: Security and Human Rights at Work in International Criminal Justice” in Security and Human Rights. Hart Publishing Ltd.
Pérez-León Acevedo, Juan Pablo.
“Human Rights at the Reparations System of the International Criminal Court” in Human Rights Norms in ‘Other’ International Courts.
Cambridge University Press.
Pérez-León Acevedo, Juan Pablo.
“Reparation Principles at the International Criminal Court” in General Principles and the Coherence of International Law. Brill Nijhoff.
Pérez-León Acevedo, Juan Pablo.
“Reparations for Victims of Mass Atrocities: Actual and Potential Contributions of the Inter-American Court of Human Rights to the International Criminal Court” in The Global Community Yearbook of International Law and Jurisprudence.
Oxford University Press.
Ulfstein, Geir. “How should the European Court of Human Rights respond to Criticism” in The International Rule of Law? Rise or Decline?. Oxford University Press.
Voigt, Christina. “Climate Change at the Courts: The Role of the Judiciary in Cases related to Climate Change” in The Promise of Law: Essays marking the retirement of Dame Sian Elias
as Chief Justice of New Zealand.
LexisNexis Butterworths.
Voigt, Christina. “Introduction:
International Courts and the Environment: Questions of
Legitimacy? In International Judicial Practice on the Environment – Questions of Legitimacy. Cambridge University Press.
Voigt, Christina. “The Environment and Peace: What Role for International Law” in Research Handbook on International Law and Peace. Edward Elgar PublishingUlfstein, Geir. “The Human Rights Treaty Bodies and Legitimacy Challenges” in Legitimacy and International Courts. Cambridge University Press.
Journal special issues
Adams, N. P., Scherz, Antoinette,
Schmelzle, Cord. “Legitimacy Beyond the State: Normative and Conceptual Questions” in Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy. (Vol. 23).
Baetens, Freya, Paparinskis, Matins, Penusliski, Ilija Mitrev, Gaffney, John P. “The Modernisation of the Energy Charter Treaty” in Transnational Dispute Management.
Nicholson, Joanna, Acevedo, Juan Pablo Pérez-León. “Balancing the Rights of Defendants and the Rights of Victims”
in Journal of International Criminal Justice (Vol. 17).
Voigt, Christina. “The Role of
International Courts in Protecting Environmental Commons” in
University of Hawaii Law Review (Vol.
41).
| 31
-
Journal articles
Adams, N.P.; Scherz, Antoinette;
Schmelzle, Cord. “Legitimacy beyond the state: institutional purposes and contextual constraints”. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (CRISPP).
Brandon, Emma Hynes. “Grave breaches and justifications: The war crime of forcible transfer or deportation of civilians and the exception for evacuations for imperative military reasons.” Oslo Law Review.
Chiou, Fang-Yi; Hermansen, Silje Synnøve Lyder; Høyland, Bjørn.
«Delegation of committee reports in the European Parliament”. European Union Politics (EUP).
Cornejo Chavez, Leiry; García-Godos, Jemima; Pérez León Acevedo, Juan Pablo. “The Presidential Pardon of Fujimori: Political Struggles in Peru and the Subsidiary Role of the Inter American Court of Human Rights”.
International Journal of Transitional Justice.
Derlén, Mattias; Lindholm, Johan;
Naurin, Nils Daniel. “You’re Gonna Miss Me When I’m Gone! The Impact of Brexit on Member States’
Contribution to the Case Law of the CJEU”. Europarättslig tidskrift.
Huhe, Narisong; Naurin, Nils Daniel;
Thomson, Robert. “Don’t cry for me Britannia: The resilience of the European Union to Brexit”. European Union Politics (EUP).
Naurin, Nils Daniel; Naurin, Elin;
Alexander, Amy. “Gender stereotyping and chivalry in international
negotiations. A survey experiment in the Council of the European Union”.
International Organization.
Naurin, Nils Daniel; Stiansen,
Øyvind. “The Dilemma of Dissent:
Split Judicial Decisions and
Compliance With Judgments From the International Human Rights Judiciary”. Comparative Political Studies.
Nicholson, Joanna. “‘Too High’, ‘Too Low’, or ‘Just Fair Enough’?: Finding Legitimacy Through the Accused’s Right to a Fair Trial”. Journal of International Criminal Justice.
Olof, Larsson; Naurin, Nils Daniel. “Split Vision. Multidimensionality in the European Union’s Legal Policy Space”.
International Studies Quarterly.
Pavone, Tommaso. “From Marx to Market: Lawyers, European Law, and the Contentious Transformation of the Port of Genoa”. Law & Society Review.
Pavone, Tommaso. “Book review. EU Law Stories: Contextual and Critical Histories of European Jurisprudence”.
The American Journal of Comparative Law.
Pérez-León Acevedo, Juan Pablo.
“Assessing Victim Participation during Sentencing at the International Criminal Court”. Journal of
International Criminal Justice.
Pérez-León Acevedo, Juan Pablo.
“Sentencing factors concerning those most responsible for international crimes in Peru: An analysis vis-a-vis international criminal court sources”.
International Criminal Law Review.
Pérez-León Acevedo, Juan Pablo.
“Victims and Reparations in International Criminal Justice:
African Initiatives”. Nordic Journal of International Law.
Pérez-León Acevedo, Juan Pablo; Pinto, Thiago Felipe Alves. “Enforcing Freedom of Religion or Belief in Cases Involving Attacks against Buildings Dedicated to Religion: The Al Mahdi Case at the International Criminal Court”. Berkley Journal of International Law.
Pérez-León Acevedo, Juan Pablo.
“Bringing the Bosses to International Criminal Trials: The Problems with Joint Criminal Enterprise and the
“Control over the Crime” Approach as a Better Alternative. Pace International Law Review.
Scherz, Antoinette. “Tying legitimacy to political power: Graded legitimacy standards for international
institutions”. European Journal of Political Theory.
Scherz, Antoinette; Zysset, Alain. “The UN Security Council, Normative Legitimacy and the Challenge of Specificity”. Critical Review of International Social and Political Philosophy (CRISPP).
Stiansen, Øyvind. “Delayed but not derailed: legislative compliance with European Court of Human Rights judgments”. International Journal of Human Rights.
Stiansen, Øyvind. “Directing
Compliance? Remedial Approach and Compliance with European Court of Human Rights Judgments”. British Journal of Political Science.
Sælen, Håkon; Tørstad, Vegard; Holz, Christian; Nielsen, Tobias Dan.
«Fairness conceptions and self- determined mitigation ambition under the Paris Agreement: Is there a relationship?” Environmental Science and Policy.
Ulfstein, Geir. “Interpretation of the ECHR in light of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties”.
International Journal of Human Rights.
Voigt, Christina. “How a “Global Pact for the Environment” could add value to International Environmental Law?”.
Review of European Community &
International Environmental Law.
Zihua, Gu; Voigt, Christina; Werksman, Jacob. “Facilitating implementation and promoting compliance with the Paris agreement under article 15:
Conceptual challenges and pragmatic choices”. Climate Law.The Law and Practice of International Courts and Tribunals.
Selectected blog posts
Baetens, Freya. Abuse of Process and Abuse of Rights Before the ICJ: Ever More Popular, Ever Less Successful?
EJIL:Talk! - Blog of the European Journal of International Law.
Baetens, Freya. Renewable energy incentives: reconciling investment, EU State aid and climate change law.
EJIL:Talk! - Blog of the European Journal of International Law.
Baetens, Freya. The International Court of Justice renders its judgment in the Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan).
EJIL:Talk! - Blog of the European Journal of International Law.
Carrol, Emma. Instituting a Global Sanctions Regime. PluriCourts Blog Carrol, Emma; Skeie, Victoria.
Tom Ginsburg on Authoritarian International Law. PluriCourts Blog.
Gáspár-Szilágyi, Szilárd. AG bot in opinion 1/17. The autonomy of the
EU legal order v. the reasons why the CETA ICS might be needed. European Law Blog.
Kelemen, R. Daniel; Pavone, Tommaso;
Emmons, Cassandra. The Perils of Passivity in the Rule of Law Crisis:
A Response to von Bogdandy.
Verfassungsblog.
Langford, Malcolm; Behn, Daniel,;
Letorneau-Tremblay, Laura.
Investment Arbitration and its Discontents: An Empirical Assessment. EJIL:Talk! - Blog of the European Journal of International Law.
Ntahiraj, Bernard. Gambia vs. Myanmar:
Interstate litigation and accountability for mass atrocity crimes: Any
potential in and for Africa? African Group of Experts on International Criminal Justice Blog
Røsæg, Erik. Maritime rescue operations in the Mediterranean. PluriCourts Blog.
Ulfstein, Geir; Risini, Isabella. Inter-State Applications under the European Convention on Human Rights:
Strengths and Challenges. EJIL:Talk!
- Blog of the European Journal of International Law
Ulfstein, Geir. How International Law Restricts the Use of Military Force in Hormuz. EJIL:Talk! - Blog of the European Journal of International Law Voigt, Christina. The multilateral
response to climate change made another important step forward.
PluriCourts Blog.
Selected media contributions
Føllesdal, Andreas. uio.no- bare så
34 | PluriCourts Annual Report 2019
enhetlig som nødvendig og for øvrig mangfold. Uniforum 2019
Føllesdal, Andreas; Næss, Petter.
En konstruktiv USA-kritiker og programmet han skapte. Khrono.no 2019.
Føllesdal, Andreas; Ulfstein, Geir. Hva kan barnevernet lære av dommen i menneskerettighetsdomstolen?.
Aftenposten (morgenutg. : trykt utg.) 2019.
Ulfstein, Geir. Flere trusler mot folkeretten. Dagsavisen [Avis] 2019
11-15.
Ulfstein, Geir. Folkeretten – har vi nådd toppen?. Det Norske Vitenskaps- Akademi [Internett] 2019-10-18.
Ulfstein, Geir. Krim: en oppklaring.
Klassekampen 2019.
Ulfstein, Geir. Utenriksministeren svarte ikke på om Norge brøt folkeretten i Libya. Morgenbladet 2019.
Ulfstein, Geir; Holtsmark, Sven G..
Får IS-kvinnene og deres barn regjeringens neste unnskyldning?.
Aftenposten (morgenutg. : trykt utg.) 2019.
Selected lectures and presentations
Baetens, Freya. High-jacking anticipated, prevented and overcome: how to safeguard the WTO appellate system - and beyond. Conference of the European Society of International Law (ESIL); 2019-09-12 - 2019-09-14.
Baetens, Freya. ‘Human rights norms before specialised courts and
tribunals: WTO, ISDS, CJEU, African regional courts and ITLOS’. EUI Seminar; 2019-10-08 - 2019-10-09.
Baetens, Freya. State consent to the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice: modify or perish. State Consent to International Jurisdiction - Expert Seminar; 2019-06-21 - 2019
06-21.
Brandon, Emma Hynes. Holding Signatories to Account: Applying interim obligations under Article 18 of the VCLT to states in the process of ratifying the Rome Statute.
Expert Meeting- State Consent to International Jurisdiction; 2019-06-21 - 2019-06-21.
Føllesdal, Andreas. A just yet
inegalitarian European Union? A liberal contractualist defense of moderate inequality. EUI workshop on Is Europe Unjust?; 2019-09-17.
Føllesdal, Andreas.“Add international courts and stir… Reconstructing Human Rights Practices: Risks, Roles and Repercussions” On Beitz’ The Idea of Human Rights. Conference on Charles Beitz’ The Idea of Human Rights; 2019-06-14.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Better Cairns, not better Crutches: how to improve the consensus “doctrine” for Europe - and beyond. PluriCourts Political Philosophy Seminar; 2019-10-30.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Challenges to legitimacy and the role of European courts”. Workshop on Authority and legitimacy of the European Union;
2019-02-01.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Current contributions of the natural law tradition to international law.
Working Group 12; 2019-06-08.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Customary international law and consent.
Seminar; 2019-06-24.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Forholdet mellom EMD og nasjonale domstoler. Kurs for dommere; 2019-10-14.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Gender inequity on the international bench. PluriCourts Seminar; 2019-03-13.
Føllesdal, Andreas. International law and the natural law tradition. ECPR joint sessions; 2019-04-09.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Machiavellian
Misgivings about International Judges:
Create and Counsel, but always Curb.
Seminar; 2019-12-12.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Majoritarian Populism versus Human Rights Protection – how might International Courts Respond?. Seminar; 2019-11
28.
Føllesdal, Andreas. On applying for ERC grants. Seminar; 2019-05-03.
Føllesdal, Andreas. On the ASEAN Declaration on Human Rights.
Seminar; 2019-09-27.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Organized Panel on the Legitimacy of International Courts. Panel 91; 2019-06-08.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Regional human rights systems: Protectors of human rights, or of national and regional identities – or both?. Seminar; 2019
11-20.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Rettsvitenskap og filosofi. Workshop om
rettsvitenskapelig metode; 2019-02
14.
Føllesdal, Andreas. The Comparative Advantage of International Courts to Manage Global Public Goods: Tasks, Mechanisms, Alternatives, Scope Conditions. Protecting Community Interests under International Law:
Challenges and Prospects for the 21st
| 35
Century; 2019-06-03.
Føllesdal, Andreas.“The idea of human rights” @ 10 – on Beitz. IPLT seminar;
2019-03-19.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Workshop on ERC Application writing. Workshop on ERC Application writing; 2019-06-12.
Føllesdal, Andreas. Workshop on ERC application writing - startup.
Workshop on ERC application writing - startup; 2019-05-09.
Letourneau-Tremblay, Laura.
Arbitration’s Relationship to Policy and Doctrinal Research. Future Directions in Empirical Research on Investment Treaty Law and Arbitration; 2019-01-31.
Letourneau-Tremblay, Laura Counterclaims and Investors’
Obligations: New Paradigm?. The Legitimate Role for Investment Law and Arbitration in Protecting Human Rights; 2019-09-04 - 2019-09-05.
Letourneau-Tremblay, Laura.
Interdisciplinarity and International Economic Law: Diverse Approaches in Research and Practice. Canadian Council on International Law, 48th Annual Conference; 2019-10-24 - 2019-10-25.
Lie, Runar Hilleren. Does change matter? A computational study of ISDS actors’ response to change. The Legitimate Role for Investment Law and Arbitration in Protecting Human Rights; 2019-09-04 - 2019-09-05.
Naurin, Nils Daniel; Holmgren, Mikael.
Justice Delayed: How Ideological Conflict Affects the Court of Justice of the EU?. The Centre for Legal Theory and Empirical Jurisprudence; 2019
01-18 - 2019-01-18.
Siv, Cheruvu; Naurin, Nils Daniel;
Hermansen, Silje Synnøve Lyder.
Does Merit Selection Matter for Judicial Performance? Evidence from the Court of Justice of the European Union. General Conference of ECPR;
2019-09-03 - 2019-09-07.
Strain, Nicola Claire. The Murky Waters of Jurisdiction and Applicable
Law in International Economic Disputes. 8th Conference of the Postgraduate and Early Professionals/
Academics Network of the Society of International Economic Law; 2019
05-30 - 2019-05-31.
Strain, Nicola Claire. The Murky Waters of Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in International Economic Disputes.
State Consent to International Jurisdiction - Expert Seminar; 2019
06-21 - 2019-06-21.
Ulfstein, Geir. Folkerettens betydning i dag. Akademimøte; 2019-10-24.
Ulfstein, Geir. Med Svalbard i 100 år - Hvor suverene er vi?. Juristforum;
2019-11-06.
Ulfstein, Geir. The Membership of and Participation in Societies for International Law. Current Challenges to International Law: The Role of Societies for International Law; 2019
09-02 - 2019-09-03.
Ulfstein, Geir. The relationship between human rights and human rights law.
Research and Human Rights; 2019
09-26.
PluriCourts annual report 2019
Copyright: PluriCourts, University of Oslo Edited by: Marit Fosse and Victoria Skeie
Contributions by: Marit Fosse, Victoria Skeie, and Emma Carrol Layout: Hanna Karv and Lara M. Wik
http://www.jus.uio.no/pluricourts
